That looks pretty good! I'll trade you patches. I haven't yet been able to verify if this works, but the idea is clear -- just use the code we need.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5855 My TCK setup got messed up somehow and I'm currently re-downloading it, but I figure you might be able to verify it a little quicker. -David On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote: > Hi David, > > I just attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1439 > > All ejblink cases passed locally with the patch. Could you help review it ? > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Thanks, Shawn! > > On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: > > > In the changes of JIRA[1] made by Jarek, there are many code[2] added in > > all module builders to remove the .jar extension from module name. I could > > also find similar change[1] in openejb code. For EJB module, because > > openejb will need the .jar style module name to resolve the EJB > > link(xxx.jar#xxx), the change broke the ejb link cases. > > Looks like we broke the link resolving code when we added the Java EE 6 > <module-name> support. The link resolving code shouldn't be using the > moduleId, rather the path of the archive itself. > > Previously there was not spec defined concept of module-name (moduleId for > us). When we pushed in the spec module-name concept on top of the existing > code, things probably got a little confused. The moduleId vs path logic was > never very clear in the code previously. Probably we need to do some tweaks > in the integration and maybe OpenEJB to get this right. > > > I want to revert the .jar removal code from EjbModuleBuilder to fix this, > > but I don't want to broke other things because of the revert. Can anyone > > tell me what's the reason to remove the .jar extension ? > > That's the spec defined module name if the <module-name> element isn't set in > the descriptor. > > > -David > > > > > -- > Shawn
